Re: vcard:AddressBook

Thanks for the link! In this case we'll try to get W3C staff to edit
http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns for us, since that is what we've already
been using. In the future, for minting new vocabulary URLs, it's definitely
a good option to consider.

Cheers,
Michiel

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 at 17:09, Peter Rivett <
pete.rivett@federatedknowledge.com> wrote:

> Please let's not create another solution when what you're looking for
> seems already addressed by https://w3id.org which is mature and widely
> used.
> Note - despite the first 2 letters this is not maintained by W3C.
>
> Pete
>
> Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@federatedknowledge.com)
> Federated Knowledge, LLC (LEI 98450013F6D4AFE18E67)
> tel: +1-701-566-9534
> Schedule a meeting at https://calendly.com/rivettp
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 3, 2025 8:05 AM
> *To:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* semantic-web@w3.org <semantic-web@w3.org>; public-solid@w3.org <
> public-solid@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: vcard:AddressBook
>
> Yes, sounds like a versatile and flexible solution, but setting up such a
> per-term list would be redesigning the semantic web, wouldn't it?
> For now, I have good hope that we can get it working at its
> current location, so no need to go to such lengths, I think.
>
> I opened an issue for W3C staff here:
> https://github.com/w3c/w3c-website/issues/716
> which looped me back to this mailing list, and I also tried contacting a
> couple of W3C staff members directly, to which I got no response, but I'm
> sure sooner or later someone at W3C staff will be able to make the edit for
> us. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Michiel de Jong
> Solid CG co-chair
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 at 14:15, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> út 25. 3. 2025 v 10:43 odesílatel Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
> napsal:
>
> The reaction on the Calsify mailing list (from my respected personal
> friend Hans-Joerg Happel) sounded positive:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/17sFwUiDu-zp77vbiQBJRjR-_L8/
> There was also a thumbs-up from Pete Rivett on Tim Berners-Lee point here:
> https://github.com/solid/contacts/issues/8#issuecomment-2719050285
>
> That makes me think that adding the terms from
> https://github.com/solid/contacts/pull/12/files?short_path=d90e4ed#diff-d90e4edb2d214338309e8948af2f00da8dac0954ae325f903ad5b85d9ae6e9e5
> into https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns could be a reasonable path forward?
> What would be the next step to explore that?
>
> And in general, can we (as a DX improvement) create links from
> https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns to https://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/ and
> the other documents that describe it?
>
>
> I think this issue really highlights the bigger challenge of having a
> stable URI for terms, versus getting blocked as a developer.
>
> There’s probably no one-size-fits-all solution here — it likely depends on
> the developer’s preference in the end.
>
> That said, I think it would be super helpful to maintain a list of terms
> that map to stable locations. You could start with the usual schema.org
> ones and then gradually add common terms. If something like vCard changes
> over time, just update the reference. Feels like a nice middle ground for
> folks trying to balance existing vocabularies with keeping things unblocked.
>
> It wouldn’t have to be mandatory, of course — but it might really help
> those who want to move fast without getting tangled up in red tape. I’d be
> happy to help maintain a mapping like that if it would be useful.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
> Michiel de Jong
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 16:19, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>
> On 2025-03-20 15:52, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> > Thanks! I asked them how they would feel about vCard-related RDF terms
> > existing only at W3C: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/
> > TtTXanhR-iK39MUIiaQv41lnS7U/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/
> > calsify/TtTXanhR-iK39MUIiaQv41lnS7U/>
>
>
> If you want to increase the chances of getting new terms into vCard, I
> suggest dialing back on Solid. Sharing implementation experience is very
> useful, but be prepared to generalise it - without making it seem
> Solid-specific - so that it has broader applicability and a higher
> chance of gaining wider support. Anything Solid-centric for vCard use
> will most likely need to remain within the Solid ecosystem.
>
> -Sarven
> https://csarven.ca/#i
>
>